Florida Probate Blog: Probate, Guardianship & Trust Litigation » Bloghttp://www.florida-probate-lawyer.com
The Law Offices of Adrian Philip ThomasMon, 27 Jul 2015 21:09:31 +0000en-UShourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.3Can a guardian change the trustee of a ward’s trust?http://www.florida-probate-lawyer.com/probate/can-a-guardian-change-the-trustee-of-a-wards-trust/
http://www.florida-probate-lawyer.com/probate/can-a-guardian-change-the-trustee-of-a-wards-trust/#commentsMon, 27 Jul 2015 21:09:31 +0000http://www.florida-probate-lawyer.com/?p=2829Choosing someone to act as your successor trustee upon your death or incapacity is not a decision that you should take lightly. Not only does that nominated successor trustee have a duty and obligation to carry out your wishes, but]]>Choosing someone to act as your successor trustee upon your death or incapacity is not a decision that you should take lightly. Not only does that nominated successor trustee have a duty and obligation to carry out your wishes, but that trustee also has a fiduciary obligation to act prudently and appropriately for the benefit of the subsequent beneficiaries. However, what if that nominated successor trustee turns out to be a bad choice? What if the settlor of the trust is determined to be incapacitated and cannot alter the terms of the trust?

The 5th District Court of Appeals of Florida in Rene v. Sykes-Kennedy, 156 So.3d 518 (Fla 5th DCA 2015) recently dealt with such an issue wherein a person who created a revocable trust was subsequently determined to be incapacitated. The person had nominated a granddaughter to serve as the successor trustee of the trust upon the person’s death or incapacity. When the guardianship was initiated as a result of the person’s incapacity, the guardian alleged that there were concerns regarding the ability and the appropriateness of the granddaughter having control over the person’s revocable trust. The guardian successfully petitioned the Court to alter the terms of the trust that nominated the granddaughter as the successor trustee. As a result, the guardian was appointed to serve as the successor trustee. The granddaughter subsequently appealed that Order to the 5th District Court of Appeals.

Fla. Stat. §736.0602 (6) states as follows:

A guardian of the property of the settlor may exercise a settlor’s powers with respect to revocation, amendment, or distribution of trust property only as provided in s. 744.441.

Fla. Stat. §744.441 states that a guardian, after obtaining court approval and authorization, may do the following:

(19) Create or amend revocable trusts or create irrevocable trusts of property of the ward’s estate which may extend beyond the disability or life of the ward in connection with estate, gift, income, or other tax planning or in connection with estate planning.

As a result, the 5th District Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s decision which allowed the guardian to alter the nomination of the successor trustee. It is interesting to note that this was done without any judicial findings that the granddaughter had actually done something wrong or otherwise inappropriate. All that is required in order for a guardian to obtain court approval to alter the terms of a ward’s revocable trust is that such alteration be “in the best interest of the ward.” Such a phrase can be utilized and conform to any number of different circumstances and a judicial determination will vary from case to case.

]]>0Best Legal Bloghttp://www.florida-probate-lawyer.com/probate/best-legal-blog/
http://www.florida-probate-lawyer.com/probate/best-legal-blog/#commentsTue, 14 Jul 2015 19:43:44 +0000http://www.florida-probate-lawyer.com/?p=2824If you enjoy this probate and estate litigation blog, please nominate it for inclusion on the Best Legal Blog by The Expert Institute. Thank]]>If you enjoy this probate and estate litigation blog, please nominate it for inclusion on the Best Legal Blog by The Expert Institute. Thank you!
]]>0Can a contract defeat testamentary intent?http://www.florida-probate-lawyer.com/probate/can-a-contract-defeat-testamentary-intent/
http://www.florida-probate-lawyer.com/probate/can-a-contract-defeat-testamentary-intent/#commentsTue, 26 May 2015 14:06:59 +0000http://www.florida-probate-lawyer.com/?p=2808In a word, yes.

In a blow to the unwed in the State of Florida, the Fourth District Court of Appeal recently held that an operating agreement entered into by a deceased business owner (the “Decedent”) trumped his stated testamentary intent]]>

In a word, yes.

In a blow to the unwed in the State of Florida, the Fourth District Court of Appeal recently held that an operating agreement entered into by a deceased business owner (the “Decedent”) trumped his stated testamentary intent to provide his longtime girlfriend with a lifetime payment of $5,000.00 per month, which was to be paid out of distributions from the company the Decedent formed with his sister. Blechman v. Estate of Blechman, 160 So.3d 152 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). Despite the fact that the Decedent in Blechman had amended his trust to “to provide a ‘specific gift’ of his residence and ‘one half of the distributions from [his company], to’ a trustee for the benefit of the Decedent’s girlfriend,” the Court refused to uphold the trial court’s order, which would have ensured the Decedent’s girlfriend received the $5,000.00 per month gift the Decedent’s estate plan provided. Id. at 155. While the Fourth’s opinion may, at first glance, appear to conflict with the rule of construction contained in Fla. Stat. §732.6005(1), which states “[t]he intention of the testator as expressed in the will controls the legal effect of the testator’s dispositions,” the decision was based on the longstanding “general principle” that “’express language in a contractual agreement “specifically addressing the disposition of [property] upon death’ will defeat a testamentary disposition of said property.” Id. at 158-159 (citing Murray Van & Storage, Inc. v. Murray, 364 So.2d 68, 68 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)).

The reason the Court refused to uphold the decedent’s testamentary intent was because the operating agreement of the company that the Decedent and his sister formed provided that “unless the member ‘bequeaths’ his or her membership interest via will ‘to members of the Immediate Family,’ the interest vests immediately with the member’s children.” Id. at 159. The operating agreement defined “immediate family” as comprising his or her “living children and issue of any deceased child,” not, as the court noted, “spouses . . . or paramours.” Id. at 155. The Court concluded that, because “the Decedent through the Trust amendment ‘bequeathed’ his membership interest to a trustee for the benefit of [his girlfriend],” the Decedent’s death triggered the provision of the operating agreement that immediately vested his membership interest with his children, which were the Decedent’s “immediate family” within the meaning of the operating agreement. Id. at 159-60. As a result, rather than upholding the Decedent’s testamentary intent to provide for his longtime girlfriend, the Court upheld the “clear intent of the Agreement,” which the Court noted was to place limitations on the Decedent and his sister’s ability to transfer their respective interests in the company,” so as to keep the company within the family bloodlines.” Id. at 159. Because the company immediately vested in the Decedent’s children at the time of the Decedent’s death, it passed outside of probate, “thus nullifying [the Decedent’s] testamentary devise as an attempted disposition of property not subject to his ownership.” Id. at 160; Fla. Stat. § 731.201(14).

While the Court noted that the Decedent’s “immediate family,” as defined by the operating agreement does not include “spouses . . . or paramours,” both of which the Decedent apparently had at his time of death, Florida law treats spouses and paramours very differently in these situations. Id. at 154. While the Court did not address the issue in its opinion, the Decedent’s interest in the company would have very likely been treated as part of the Decedent’s “elective estate,” as defined in Fla. Stat. § 731.2035, had the Decedent’s surviving spouse sought a portion of the company. Under Florida law, the surviving spouse of a person who dies domiciled in Florida, unlike a girlfriend, mistress, or paramour, “has the right to a [thirty percent] share of the elective estate of the decedent.” Fla. Stat. §§ 731.201 and 731.2065. Thus, had the Decedent, as Beyonce said, “put a ring on it,” the Decedent’s girlfriend would have been entitled to thirty percent of the value of the company (and thirty percent of all of the other assets that make up the “elective estate”), even if the Decedent unknowingly—or even intentionally—left nothing for her in his estate plan. Unlike the probate estate, which is limited to the “the property of a decedent that is the subject of administration,” the “elective estate” includes both probate assets as well as certain non-probate assets. Fla. Stat. § 731.201(14) and Fla. Stat. § 731.2035. Here, the Decedent’s interest in the company would likely have been treated as part of the elective estate, entitling a surviving spouse to at least thirty percent of the value of the Decedent’s interest. In other words, while a testator may be able to cut a girlfriend out of his estate plan by way of non-probate transfers, even after executing estate planning documents that appear to make provisions for the girlfriend, the Florida legislature has enacted legislation designed to give spouses protections that simply do not exist for girlfriend, mistresses, and paramours.

]]>0Florida Court Determines Wife Unduly Influenced Husbandhttp://www.florida-probate-lawyer.com/probate/florida-court-determines-wife-unduly-influenced-husband/
http://www.florida-probate-lawyer.com/probate/florida-court-determines-wife-unduly-influenced-husband/#commentsFri, 08 May 2015 17:37:44 +0000http://www.florida-probate-lawyer.com/?p=2798Florida law is well established that when a will is challenged on the grounds of undue influence, the influence must amount to over persuasion, duress, force, coercion, or artful or fraudulent contrivances to such an extent that there is a]]>Florida law is well established that when a will is challenged on the grounds of undue influence, the influence must amount to over persuasion, duress, force, coercion, or artful or fraudulent contrivances to such an extent that there is a destruction of free agency and willpower of the testator. As probate litigators, we frequently encounter situations where a court is presented with circumstances suggesting that a elderly person has unfortunately been taken advantage of by their own spouse. Most often the wrongdoer is a person who marries the victim just prior to death and changes the victim’s estate plan to disinherit family members who were previously the intended beneficiaries of the victim’s long standing estate plan.

One such case was recently presented in Palm Beach County, Florida where the court upheld the challenge by a testator’s daughter who sought to invalidate the will that was executed a year after the marriage and had the effect of disinheriting the victim’s daughter and giving the estate to the new bride. Blinn v. Carlmann –So.3d—(2015); 2015 WL 1223665.

Importantly, the Court observed that undue influence is not usually exercised openly in the presence of others, so that it may be directly proved, hence it may be proved by indirect evidence of facts and circumstances from which it may be inferred. In Blinn, the court found the following evidence pointing to the conclusion that the will was procured by undue influence:

The will was executed one year after the marriage and three years prior to a finding of incapacity. The court stated that failed mental capacity is a factor which should be considered as supporting the undue influence claim, and that the amount of undue influence need not be great where a testator is weak and his intellect clouded.

Before and during the marriage, the new spouse preyed on the victim’s paranoia and mental infirmity to alienate the victim from his two children and their families. For example, when the victim’s son would telephone, the new bride would immediately hang up if she answered the phone.

Prior to the marriage, the victim’s daughter took care of her father’s (the victim) finances and helped him pay his bills. After the marriage, the new spouse paid all the bills and wrote all the checks.

One year after the marriage, the new spouse wrote a letter in her own handwriting to the victim’s life insurance company requesting that the beneficiary on his policy be changed from the victim’s daughter to the new spouse. She sent similar handwritten request to the insurance company after the victim had been hospitalized and diagnosed with severe dementia.

While the victim was hospitalized, the new spouse asked a lawyer to send her estate planning documents and a power of attorney for the victim to sign. The law firm complied. The court observed that if the new spouse were so bold as to openly display such influence over the victim, then it can be reasonably inferred that similar or greater influence was occurring in the dark during their marriage.

This is the type of indirect and circumstantial evidence that is routinely used by probate litigators to prove that undue influence has occurred in the procurement of a will or a trust by unscrupulous persons. Unfortunately for many Florida seniors, the undue influencers are often those persons whom they share a trusting and confidential relationship.

]]>0BUT YOU AGREED TO MAKE ME THE BENEFICIARY!http://www.florida-probate-lawyer.com/probate/but-you-agreed-to-make-me-the-beneficiary/
http://www.florida-probate-lawyer.com/probate/but-you-agreed-to-make-me-the-beneficiary/#commentsTue, 14 Apr 2015 21:36:08 +0000http://www.florida-probate-lawyer.com/?p=2792Whether in the context of a divorce proceeding or when a couple is preparing their estate planning together, some people agree to a contract to subsequently make a Will or Trust that names another as the primary beneficiary. This primarily]]>Whether in the context of a divorce proceeding or when a couple is preparing their estate planning together, some people agree to a contract to subsequently make a Will or Trust that names another as the primary beneficiary. This primarily (but not always) takes place when a married couple enters into a prenuptial or postnuptial agreement and in said agreement, they each agree that they will each sign a Will that makes the other person a beneficiary.

What if in this agreement, they both agree that they will never revoke or amend such a Will regardless of divorce? What if one of them changes the Will after the divorce? What happens when that person dies?

Florida Courts have dealt with similar situations and have held that such an irrevocable contract to make a Will can be made binding and damages may be sought against the breaching party’s estate. In Boyle v. Schmitt, 602 So.2d 665 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), the Court held that “unlike a will which is clearly ambulatory in nature and therefore may readily be revoked by a competent testator, a contract to make a will may be irrevocable and therefore subject to specific enforcement by the court.” (quoting Donner v. Donner, 302 So.2d 452, 455 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). As a result, “[i]f the promisor breaches his agreement to make a devise or not to revoke a will, the beneficiary of the promise or improperly revoked will may bring an action to enforce the terms of the agreement.” Johnson v. Girtman, 542 So.2d 1033, 1035 (Fla.3d DCA 1989).

Florida has made it clear that otherwise competent testator’s ability to revoke, modify or otherwise amend a Will is a right that he or she will always maintain. However, if such a testator signs a separate contract promising to never revoke that Will, the promised beneficiary may have a cause of action for breach of contract against the breaching party’s estate and can seek financial damages.

Nevertheless, it is always best to consult with an experience probate litigator to learn of what potential rights and causes of action you may have.

]]>0Probate Creditor Claims in Floridahttp://www.florida-probate-lawyer.com/probate/probate-creditor-claims-in-florida/
http://www.florida-probate-lawyer.com/probate/probate-creditor-claims-in-florida/#commentsMon, 06 Apr 2015 14:52:03 +0000http://www.florida-probate-lawyer.com/?p=2780ADDRESSING THE ISSUE OF CREDITOR CLAIMS FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE

One of the significant issues a Personal Representative of an Estate needs to address is that of the claims against the Estate by creditors. To administer an estate]]>

ADDRESSING THE ISSUE OF CREDITOR CLAIMS FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE

One of the significant issues a Personal Representative of an Estate needs to address is that of the claims against the Estate by creditors. To administer an estate in an orderly manner, the Personal Representative must ascertain what debts and claims are to be paid by the estate, because no assets should be distributed until the Personal Representative is certain that these debts and claims can be paid.

Florida Statute 733.212 states that “the Personal Representative shall promptly make a diligent search to determine the names and addresses of creditors of the decedent who are reasonably ascertainable, even if the claims are unmatured, contingent or unliquidated.” A diligent search must be undertaken, and such a search depends on the familiarity of the Personal Representative with the decedent’s affairs. It should include a careful review of the defendant’s financial records.

Notice of Administration must be given to creditors. Formerly, it could be done by publication. However, in 1989, the statute was amended to require actual service of a copy of the notice of administration on certain creditors. This notice has to be given to reasonably ascertainable creditors. This was as a result to the case of Tulsa Professional Collection Services, Inc. v Pope, 485 U.S. 478, 108 S. Ct.; 1340, 99 L.Ed. 2d 565 (1988).

However, the Court has interpreted Pope as being inapplicable when the claimants know of the opening of the Estate at the time of its beginning but failed to timely file a claim. After letters are issued to the Personal Representative, it is his or her responsibility to publish a notice to creditors advising all persons having claims or demands against the estate to file their claims with the court “on or before the later of the date that is 3 months after the time of the first publication of the notice to creditors or, as to any creditor required to be served a copy of the notice to creditors, 30 days after the date of service.

Unless creditor’s claims are barred by the two year statute of non-claim, the Personal Representative is required to cause the notice to creditors to be published “promptly” after the issuance of letters. Then, Proof of Publication of the notice to creditors must be filed with the court within 45 days of the first publication.

If a creditor is reasonably ascertainable, the personal representative shall promptly serve a copy of the notice to creditors on that creditor. However, service is not required on any creditor who has filed a claim, been paid in full or is listed in a Personal Representative’s proof of claim.

The failure to serve a reasonably ascertainable creditor prevents the claim from being barred until the expiration of the two year claims period. A

Personal representative is required to file a verified “Statement Regarding Creditors” within four months after the first publication of the notice to creditors which evidences the diligent search and names the creditors with their addresses. It must also indicate whether each was served a notice to creditors or otherwise received actual notice. Claims must be filed with the court no later than the later of three months after the time of the first publication of notice to creditors or 30 days after the date of service of the notice o creditors on the creditor.

If a claim is not filed within before the expiration of the three month/thirty day period, it is barred. 733.710 provides an alternate limitations period of two years after the person’s death notwithstanding any other provisions.

A personal representative should investigate all claims and may file an objection to the claims within 4 months from the first publication of the notice to creditors, or within 30 days from the timely filing of the claim, whichever occurs later. A copy of the objection filed must be served on the claimant by registered or certified mail or by personal service.

The above provides a road map of the initial stages of the issue of claims from the personal representative’s viewpoint. In order to address the particulars of this process, an individual who has been given the significant responsibility of being a personal representative should contact an attorney to ensure this most important aspect of the Probate process is addressed prior to distributing any assets and, preferably, shortly after the individual has passed, in order to begin the probate process.

]]>0Exploitation of the Elderlyhttp://www.florida-probate-lawyer.com/probate/exploitation-of-the-elderly-2/
http://www.florida-probate-lawyer.com/probate/exploitation-of-the-elderly-2/#commentsWed, 18 Mar 2015 14:20:46 +0000http://www.florida-probate-lawyer.com/?p=2775Fla. Stat. § 732.518 provides that “[a]n action to contest the validity of all or part of a will or the revocation of all or part of a will may not be commenced before the death of the testator.” Essentially]]>Fla. Stat. § 732.518 provides that “[a]n action to contest the validity of all or part of a will or the revocation of all or part of a will may not be commenced before the death of the testator.” Essentially this means that interested persons cannot contest a will until after the death of the person who made the will. But what if you know that your elderly family member or loved one has been taken advantage of by a caregiver and you want to protect him or her now?

Fortunately, the Florida Legislature has provided a means of not only protecting vulnerable, elderly adults, but also punishing those who exploit them for personal gain. Fla. Stat. § 415.1111 provides a civil cause of action against a caregiver or person who stands in a position of trust and abuses that trust through neglect, deception, or intimidation in order to defraud his victim of money, assets, or property. Under Fla. Stat. § 415.102, the definition of “caregiver” is extremely broad. It includes any person who “has been entrusted with or has assumed the responsibility for frequent and regular care of or services to a vulnerable adult on a temporary or permanent basis and who has a commitment, agreement, or understanding with that person or that person’s guardian that a caregiver role exists. Under the statute, a “Caregiver” can be a relative, household member, guardian, neighbor, or an employee and volunteers at a facility that provides residential care of treatment for vulnerable adults.

The statute also recognizes the fact that vulnerable elderly adults often lack the capacity and the means to file these actions on their own behalf. As such, the lawsuit can be brought by the vulnerable adult, or that person’s guardian, by a person acting on behalf of the vulnerable adult with consent, or by the personal representative of the estate of a deceased victim.

In one particularly shocking case of elderly abuse, the U.S. Court District Court for the Middle District of Florida indicated that the plaintiff could properly state a cause of action against a defendant who utilized a power of attorney document to make herself the sole beneficiary of an elderly man’s life insurance policy, trust, and annuities, not to mention the owner of his home! See Conseco Ins. Co. v. Clark, 2006 WL 2024401 (M.D. Fla. Jul 17, 2006). The Defendant acted as the elderly man’s attorney in fact pursuant to the power of attorney document for years while the unfortunate elderly gentleman lived in a nursing home, apparently unaware of the Defendant’s activities. The Plaintiff, the elderly man’s nephew and his primary beneficiary under the initial instruments, learned of the Defendant’s activities only after his uncle’s death. One of the issues discussed in the Court’s opinion was the fact that the Plaintiff had difficulty in ascertaining the exact amount of the damage caused by the Defendant’s fraudulent abuse of the power of attorney because it was so extensive.

As the Conseco case demonstrates, Florida law provides a method of holding a defendant who exploits a vulnerable elderly adult accountable after the victim’s death – but by then the damage is already done. During the victim’s life, Fla. Stat. § 415.1111 can be a powerful weapon against a person to combat the exploitation of the elderly and to recover damages on their behalf. Notably, the statute provides for punitive damages and states that a party who prevails in an action arising from the exploitation or abuse of an elderly adult may be entitled to recover attorney’s fees, and costs of the action.

If your family member or loved one has been exploited by a caregiver of person in a position of trust, contact the attorneys at Adrian Philip Thomas.

As most probate litigators will acknowledge, one of the primary arguments for revoking a Will is that it was procured through the undue influence of another. Florida courts have defined “undue influence”]]>

Mental Inequality as a Factor in Undue Influence Lawsuits

As most probate litigators will acknowledge, one of the primary arguments for revoking a Will is that it was procured through the undue influence of another. Florida courts have defined “undue influence” as over-persuasion, duress, or coercion by one over the settlor of a Will to such a degree that the Will reflects the wishes of the undue influencer as opposed to the settlor. A key component in assessing and determining the merits of an undue influence claim is whether there existed a substantial and cognizable inequality between the mental sharpness between the settlor of the Will and the alleged undue influencer. Although medical and mental health records are often reviewed and submitted for evidence in such cases, this factor of ‘mental inequality’ is different than alleging that the settlor lacked testamentary capacity to execute such a Will in the first place.

In matters pertaining to undue influence, it is assumed that settlor had testamentary capacity but that his mind was so weak when compared to the undue influencer that the validity of the Will is in question. In other words, the mental acuteness of the settlor and the undue influencer are compared, as opposed to simply evaluating the testamentary capacity of the settlor.

Several Florida courts have considered this factor of mental inequality. In the matter of In re Estate of Reid, 138 So.2d 342 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962), the court found that even though the settlor did not lack testamentary capacity in that case, her mental health was nevertheless “extremely weak” and found that she could be unduly influenced easily by the defendant. Moreover, the analysis of undue influence is factually specific to the settlor and the defendant in each matter (how an ordinary or reasonable person would have acted is not considered). This case and cases like it support the notion that lack of testamentary capacity is much more difficult to prove than the mental inequality factor in undue influence cases.

There are several nuances that must be considered and addressed when claiming that a Will is the product of undue influence. It is in your best interest to consult with an experienced probate litigator when determining whether to file a lawsuit based on such allegations.

]]>0Proving Undue Influencehttp://www.florida-probate-lawyer.com/probate/proving-undue-influence/
http://www.florida-probate-lawyer.com/probate/proving-undue-influence/#commentsFri, 06 Feb 2015 13:51:41 +0000http://www.florida-probate-lawyer.com/?p=2764Proving that a will was procured by the undue influence of another can sometimes be difficult. Often, this type of conduct occurs in secret, away from the watchful eyes of family and loved ones and involves the victimization of an]]>Proving that a will was procured by the undue influence of another can sometimes be difficult. Often, this type of conduct occurs in secret, away from the watchful eyes of family and loved ones and involves the victimization of an elderly, ill person at the hands of someone he or she trusts. Florida law recognizes this realty and the legislature has provided a means by which plaintiffs may not only prove undue influence, but also shift the burden of proof so that that defendant must offer his own evidence.

Fla. Stat. §733.107 provides that, when contesting the validity of a will, the burden of proof shifts. First, the proponent of the will, i.e. the defendant, must establish that the will was properly executed. If the defendant initially proves that the Will was signed and properly witnessed, then the burden to prove undue influence shifts to the plaintiff. Fla. Stat. § 733.107 recognizes that a presumption of undue influence should apply against those in positions of trust, such as a fiduciary, actively procure a will for their own benefit.

When Florida courts examine whether a defendant “actively procured” a will, they look at several factors including:

Was the defendant present at the signing of the will?

Was the defendant present when the Decedent discussed a desire to make a will?

Did the defendant recommend an attorney to draft the will?

Did the defendant know what the will would say before it was signed?

Did the defendant instruct the drafting attorney regarding preparation of the will?

Did the defendant secure the witnesses to the will?

Did the defendant retain the original signed will for safekeeping?

If the Plaintiff can produce sufficient evidence of undue influence by demonstrating that the defendant has a substantial benefit under the will, possessed a confidential relationship with the decedent, and actively procured the will, the burden shifts again. Now the defendant must affirmatively disprove the existence of undue influence.

The presumption of undue influence and the shifts in the burden of proof found in Fla. Stat. § 733.107 and Florida jurisprudence illustrate the public policy against abuse of fiduciary or confidential relationships and the unfortunate realty that cases of undue influence are common. With § 733.107, the legislature has provided a useful tool for plaintiffs who seek to contest the validity of a will procured by undue influence.

]]>0Time Share Scamhttp://www.florida-probate-lawyer.com/probate/time-share-scam/
http://www.florida-probate-lawyer.com/probate/time-share-scam/#commentsThu, 05 Feb 2015 14:01:59 +0000http://www.florida-probate-lawyer.com/?p=2760It has come to our attention that an individual claiming to be Attorney Adrian Thomas is contacting people around the country about buying and selling time shares. This is a SCAM. Do not give this individual any information about you or]]>It has come to our attention that an individual claiming to be Attorney Adrian Thomas is contacting people around the country about buying and selling time shares. This is a SCAM. Do not give this individual any information about you or about your bank accounts. The man calling leaves a message that he is “Attorney Adrian Thomas” calling about timeshares and leaves the following callback numbers: 321-200-0097, 321-250-6903, 321-250-9121. Directions are sent to send money to the Dominican Republic via Western Union. The matter has been reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Federal Trade Commission. If you are contacted by someone claiming to be Attorney Adrian Thomas about a timeshare, please provide this office with the information so we can pass it along to the FBI.

If you have lost money through this scam, please log on to www.ic3.gov to file a complaint with the FBI.

Thank you to those of you who took the effort to contact our office and advise us about the scam.